# Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2021-17779 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** August 20, 2021 - **Citation:** 86 FR 46906 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Parts 208 and 235 [CIS No. 2692-21; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2021-0012] RIN 1615-AC67 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Executive Office for Immigration Review 8 CFR Parts 1003, 1208, and 1235 [A.G. Order No. 5116-2021] RIN 1125-AB20 Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers AGENCY: Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) (collectively, “the Departments”) are proposing to amend the regulations governing the determination of certain protection claims raised by individuals subject to expedited removal and found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture. Under the proposed rule, such individuals could have their claims for asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “the Act”) (“statutory withholding of removal”), or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing U.S. obligations under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) initially adjudicated by an asylum officer within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Such individuals who are granted relief by the asylum officer would be entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under CAT, as appropriate. Such individuals who are denied protection would be able to seek prompt, de novo review with an immigration judge (“IJ”) in the DOJ Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), with appeal available to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). These changes are intended to improve the Departments' ability to consider the asylum claims of individuals encountered at or near the border more promptly while ensuring fundamental fairness. In addition, among other changes to the asylum process, the Departments are proposing to return to the regulatory framework governing the credible fear screening process in place before various regulatory changes made from the end of 2018 through the end of 2020, so as to apply once more the longstanding “significant possibility” screening standard to all protection claims, but not to apply the mandatory bars to asylum and withholding of removal (with limited exception) at this initial screening stage. DATES: Submission of public comments: Written comments and related material must be submitted on or October 19, 2021. The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept comments prior to midnight Eastern standard time at the end of that day. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the entirety of this rulemaking package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2021-0012, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the website instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS, USCIS, DOJ, or EOIR officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from the Departments. Please note that the Departments cannot accept any comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In addition, the Departments cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. The Departments also are not accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your comment by using https://www.regulations.gov, please contact Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, by telephone at (240) 721-3000 for alternate instructions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For USCIS: Andria Strano, Acting Chief, Division of Humanitarian Affairs, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20588-0009; telephone (240) 721-3000 (not a toll-free call). For EOIR: Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone (703) 305-0289 (not a toll-free call). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Public Participation II. Background A. Improving the Expedited Removal Process B. DOJ and DHS Authority To Propose This Rule C. The Current Asylum and Expedited Removal Process III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule A. Parole—Proposed 8 CFR 235.3(b)(2)(iii) and (b)(4)(ii) B. Credible Fear Screening Process—Proposed 8 CFR 208.30 C. Applications for Asylum—Proposed 8 CFR 208.3(a) and 208.9(a) D. Proceedings for Further Consideration of the Application for Asylum by USCIS Asylum Officer in Asylum and Withholding Merits Hearing for Noncitizens With Credible Fear—Proposed 8 CFR 208.2(a) and (c); 208.9(a), (f), and (g); 208.14(c)(5); 208.30(e) and (f); 235.6(a)(1); 1003.42; and 1208.30(g) E. Application Review Proceedings Before the IJ—Proposed 8 CFR 1208.2(c), 1003.48 F. Severability G. Discretion/Phased Implementation Statutory and Regulatory Requirements H. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) I. Regulatory Flexibility Act J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 K. Congressional Review Act L. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) M. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) N. Family Assessment O. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments) P. National Environmental Policy Act Q. Paperwork Reduction Act I. Public Participation Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, comments, and arguments on all aspects of this rule by the deadline stated above. The Departments also invite comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this rule. All comments must be submitted in English or accompanied by an English translation. Comments that will provide the most assistance to the Departments in developing these changes will reference a specific portion of the rule; explain the reason for any recommended change; and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to departmental officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from the Departments. Instructions: If you submit a comment, you must include the agency name (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) and the DHS Docket No. USCIS-2021-0012 for this rulemaking. All submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary public comment submission you make to the Departments. The Departments may withhold from public viewing information provided in comments that they determine may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy and Security Notice available at https://www.regulations.gov. Docket: For access to the docket and to read background documents or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov, referencing DHS Docket No. USCIS-2021-0012. You also may sign up for email alerts on the online docket to be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published. II. Background There is wide agreement that the system for dealing with asylum and related protection claims at the southwest border has long been “overwhelmed” and in desperate need of repair. 1 As the number of such claims has skyrocketed over the years, the system has proven unable to keep pace, resulting in large backlogs and lengthy adjudication delays. A system that takes years to reach a result is simply not a functional one. It delays justice and certainty for those who need protection, and it encourages abuse by those who will not qualify for protection and smugglers who exploit the delay for profit. The aim of this rule is to begin replacing the current system, within the confines of the law, with a better and more efficient one that will adjudicate protection claims fairly and expeditiously. The proposed rule would accomplish this goal by transferring the initial responsibility for adjudicating asylum and related protection claims 2 made by noncitizens encountered at or near the border from IJs in EOIR to asylum officers in USCIS. The proposed rule would also provide for the prompt filing of asylum applications by such individuals, while also providing ample procedural safeguards designed to ensure due process, respect human dignity, and promote equity. 1 See DHS, Homeland Security Advisory Council, Final Emergency Interim Report: CBP Families and Children Care Panel, at 1 (Apr. 16, 2019), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0416_hsac-emergency-interim-report.pdf; Randy Capps et al., From Control to Crisis: Changing Trends and Policies Reshaping U.S.-Mexico Border Enforcement 7, Migration Policy Institute (MPI) (Aug. 2019), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/BorderSecurity-ControltoCrisis-Report-Final.pdf (“as arrivals have surged to levels unseen in years, border enforcement and asylum systems have been overwhelmed”); Lora Ries, Securing the Border and Fixing Our Broken Immigration System, Heritage Foundation (Sept. 21, 2020), https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/securing-the-border-and-fixing-our-broken-immigration-system (“our immigration court system is so overwhelmed, [asylum] cases of merit are combined with meritless cases, each of which can take years to resolve”); Greg Chen & Peter Markowitz, Recommendations for DOJ and EOIR Leadership To Systematically Remove Non-Priority Cases from the Immigration Court Backlog 1, Am. Immigr. Law. Ass'n (Feb. 11, 2021), https://www.aila.org/infonet/ remove-non-priority-cases (“The bottleneck for the entire removal system caused by the court backlog, if not addressed quickly, presents a serious obstacle to the Biden administration's goal of ensuring the fair and efficient processing of all removal cases.”). 2 The generic term “protection claims” is used here to refer to all three forms of protection addressed in this proposed rule (asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection from removal under the regulations implementing U.S. obligations under Article 3 of the CAT). The current U.S. protection system at the border was initially designed in the mid-1990s. 3 Congress established an expedited removal process for noncitizens who present themselves at a port of entry for inspection or are encountered at or near the border and who are found to be inadmissible because they lack valid entry documents or because they sought to enter the United States by fraud or misrepresentation. INA 235(b)(1)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(i); INA 212(a)(6)(C), (7), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C), (7). Congress authorized DHS to extend the expedited removal process to certain noncitizens apprehended shortly after crossing the border unlawfully, and DHS has exercised that authority. INA 235(b)(1)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii). 4 3 See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-546 (1996) (“IIRIRA”). 4 The former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) initially implemented expedited removal only against noncitizens arriving at ports of entry. In 2002, DHS expanded the application of expedited removal to noncitizens who (1) entered the United States by sea, either by boat or other means, (2) were not admitted or paroled into the United States, and (3) have not been continuously present in the United States for at least 2 years. Notice Designating Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal Under Section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 67 FR 68924 (Nov. 13, 2002). In 2004, DHS published an immediately effective notice in the Federal Register to expand the application of expedited removal to noncitizens encountered within 100 miles of the border and to noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection fewer than 14 days before they were encountered. Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 69 FR 48877 (Aug. 11, 2004). In 2019, DHS expanded the process to the full extent authorized by statute to reach noncitizens who entered the country without inspection less than 2 years before being apprehended and who were encountered anywhere in the United States. Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 84 FR 35409 (July 23, 2019). President Biden has directed DHS to consider whether to modify, revoke, or rescind that 2019 expansion. E.O. 14010, Ensuring a Timely and Fair Expedited Removal Process, 86 FR 8267, 8270-71 (Feb. 2, 2021). A DHS immigration officer who encounters a noncitizen subject to expedited removal may order the noncitizen to be “removed from the United States without further hearing or review” unless the noncitizen indicates either “an intention to apply for asylum” or “a fear of persecution.” INA 235 (b)(1)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). If the noncitizen indicates such an intention or fear, the immigration officer must refer the noncitizen for an interview by an asylum officer to determine whether the noncitizen has a “credible fear of persecution.” INA 235(b)(1)(A)(ii), (B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii), (B)(ii). A credible fear is defined by statute as a “significant possibility” that the noncitizen could establish eligibility for asylum. INA 235(b)(1)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(v). Before various regulatory changes published between 2018 and 2020, explained in greater detail below, the “significant possibility” standard also was applied to screening for eligibility for statutory withholding of removal and CAT protection. 5 Because those recent regulatory changes have been vacated or enjoined, the “significant possibility” standard presently applies to all three forms of protection claims. 6 If the asylum officer determines that the noncitizen lacks a credible fear, that determination is subject to expedited review by an IJ, but not by the BIA or an Article III court. INA 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III); see INA 242(a)(2)(A)(iii), (e)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii), (e)(2). 5 See generally Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force for United States Nov. 20, 1994). 6 See infra note 24. Noncitizens placed into expedited removal and determined to have a credible fear of persecution or torture by an asylum officer or an IJ must be referred for “further consideration of the application for asylum.” INA 235(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). The INA is silent as to the procedures by which this “further consideration” should occur. Under regulations in place before December 2020, 7 such individuals are currently referred to IJs for removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a, (“section 240 removal proceedings”) and its implementing regulations, 8 CFR 208.30(f), 235.6(a)(1)(ii)-(iii), 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(B). In those proceedings, IJs conduct adversarial hearings to determine removability and adjudicate applications for asylum, withholding or deferral of removal, and any other forms of relief or protection. 7 See infra note 24 discussing recent regulations and their current status. The final rule entitled Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Review, 85 FR 80274, 80276 (Dec. 11, 2020) (“Global Asylum” rule), revised the process used to hear the asylum claim, placing noncitizens into asylum/withholding-only proceedings instead of removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA. The process put into place in 1997, under which noncitizens who establish credible fear generally must have their asylum claims decided through an adversarial removal proceeding before an IJ, is no longer fit for its intended purpose. It does not adequately address the need to adjudicate in a timely manner the rapidly increasing number of asylum claims raised by individuals arriving in the United States. This system was designed at a time when the vast majority of southwest border encounters involved single adults from Mexico and relatively few asylum claims were filed. This system has proven unable to manage the increasing numbers and changing demographics of noncitizens 8 with asylum claims arriving in recent years at the southwest border. Since the mid-2010s, the demographic characteristics of noncitizens encountered at the border with Mexico have been utterly transformed from being dominated by Mexican nationals to consisting mainly of nationals from the Northern Triangle countries of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) along with other Western Hemisphere states; from consisting almost entirely of adults traveling without children to including large numbers of families and unaccompanied children; and from including very few asylum seekers to asylum seekers making up a large share of southwest border encounters. 9 As a result, even as overall encounters at the southwest border have been lower in recent years than in the 1990s and 2000s, the demands on the U.S. asylum system have increased sharply. 8 For purposes of this discussion, the Departments use the term “noncitizen” synonymously with the term “alien” in the INA. See INA 101(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3). 9 Office of Immigration Statistics, Fiscal Year 2020 Enforcement Lifecycle Report 1, Dep't of Homeland Security (Dec. 2020) (“OIS FY 2020 Lifecycle Report”), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/Special_Reports/Enforcement_Lifecycle/2020_enforcement_lifecycle_report.pdf. Recent demographic changes in southwest border encounters have been dramatic. As recently as 2009, Mexican nationals accounted for 92 percent of southwest border apprehensions. 10 Their share fell below 50 percent for the first time ever in 2014, remained below 50 percent between 2016 and 2019, and fell to an all-time low of 20 percent in 2019, the last full year before the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted ongoing migration trends. 11 Single adults accounted for about 89 percent of southwest border encounters in 2013—a number that was likely near an all-time low at the time—and fell to just 38 percent in 2019. 12 Over much of this period, U.S. Border Patrol (“USBP”) agents have apprehended an increasing number of families and children from Northern Triangle countries. Individuals from Northern Triangle countries accounted for 71 percent of USBP apprehensions in 2019, a record high, and families from all countries accounted for 56 percent of the total, also an all-time high. 13 10 Dep't of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2019 Border Security Metrics Report 52 (Aug. 5, 2020), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/BSMR/ndaa_border_security_metrics_report_fy_2019_0.pdf. pdf. 11 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Southwest Land Border Encounters, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/ southwest-land-border-encounters (last visited Aug. 4, 2021); see also OIS FY 2020 Lifecycle Report, supra note 9, at 7 . Mexico's share of southwest border encounters returned to 65 percent during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but preliminary data indicate that Mexican nationals accounted for fewer than half of southwest border encounters during the first eight months of Fiscal Year 2021 and only about one-third of unique individuals when controlling for higher than usual repeat encounters due to border COVID-19 protocols. 12 Id. The phenomenon of families being encountered at the border was sufficiently rare that U.S. Border Patrol only began recording data on family unit apprehensions in 2013, and the Office of Field Operations did so beginning in 2016. 13 Mike Guo, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2019 at 4, Dep't of Homeland Security (Sept. 2020), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2019/enforcement_actions_2019.pdf. These demographic changes have coincided with—and contributed to the reversal of—what had been a long-term trend in declining border encounters. Moreover, as the population of individuals encountered at or near the southwest border has changed, the number of people making fear claims after being placed in expedited removal has increased sharply. Southwest border apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol fell from over 1.6 million in 2000 to under 330,000 in 2011 before rising back to over 850,000 in 2019. 14 During the same period, however, credible fear referrals to USCIS initially decreased from just over 10,000 in 2000, to just under 5000 in 2008, before increasing back over 11,000 in 2011, to over 105,000 in 2019. 15 Thus, even as overall border encounters fell 48 percent between 2000 and 2019, the number of individuals making fear claims increased over 900 percent. These changing demographics have had an equally dramatic impact on the immigration courts responsible for determining removability. EOIR now faces a pending caseload of approximately 1.3 million cases, 16 with approximately 610,000 pending asylum applications. 17 While the corps of IJs has more than doubled since 2014, going from 249 at the end of FY 2014 to 539 as of April 2021, 18 the number of pending cases has more than tripled in that same period, growing by nearly 500,000 cases since the end of Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2018. 19 This surge in pending and new cases, along with the temporary, partial closure of the immigration courts to in-person hearings in 2020 and 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, has resulted in significantly increased adjudication times. While the median completion time for cases involving individuals who are detained through the 2nd quarter of FY 2021 was 43 days, for non-detained individuals in removal proceedings, including arriving asylum seekers initially screened into expedited removal who establish a credible fear of persecution, the recent average case completion time in immigration court has been 3.75 years. 20 Most asylum seekers arriving at the southwest border in recent years must therefore often wait several years to have their claims adjudicated in removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a. Absent changes to the current system, the continuing arrival of large numbers of noncitizens at the southwest border with protection claims is likely to lengthen adjudication times further. 14 United States Border Patrol, Southwest Border Sectors, Total Illegal Alien Apprehensions by Fiscal Year, https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2020-Jan/U.S.%20Border%20Patrol%20Fiscal%20Year%20Southwest%20Border%20Sector%20Apprehensions%20%28FY%201960%20-%20FY%202019%29_0.pdf (last visited Aug. 4, 2021). 15 Bruno, Andorra, Immigration: U.S. Asylum Policy (CRS Report No. R45539), at 37 (Feb. 19, 2019) (data through 2018), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45539; see also U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Credible Fear Workload Report Summary—FY2019 Total Caseload (2019 data), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/Credible_Fear_Stats_FY19.pdf (last visited Aug. 4, 2021). 16 EOIR, Executive Office for Immigration Review Adjudication Statistics: Pending Cases, New Cases, and Total Completions (Apr. 19, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1242166/download. 17 EOIR, Executive Office for Immigration Review Adjudication Statistics: Total Asylum Applications (Apr. 19, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1106366/download. 18 EOIR, Executive Office for Immigration Review Adjudication Statistics: Immigration Judge (IJ) Hiring (Apr. 2021), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1242156/download. 19 EOIR, Executive Office for Immigration Review Adjudication Statistics: Pending Cases, New Cases, and Total Completions (Apr. 19, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1242166/download. 20 According to a review of data collected as part of the FY 2020 Lifecycle Report by DHS OIS, 39% of cases of noncitizens encountered at the southwest border in 2013 through 2019 who made fear claims remain in EOIR proceedings as of this date. As those cases are eventually completed, the median and average completion time for cases could be further impacted. In 2020 and 2021, the situation at the southwest border was complicated further by the COVID-19 pandemic. Pursuant to sections 362 and 365 of the Public Health Service Act, Public Law 78-410, 58 Stat. 682 (1944), 42 U.S.C. 265 and 268 (“Title 42”), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) determined in March 2020 that it was necessary to prohibit the introduction of certain persons from Mexico and Canada to protect the public health by preventing the further introduction of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the United States. 21 To mitigate the risks presented by COVID-19, the CDC Order requires returning all covered noncitizens as rapidly as possible—and with the least amount of time spent in congregate settings as is feasible—to the country from which they entered the United States, to their country of origin, or to another location as practicable and appropriate. 22 Covered noncitizens are those persons traveling from Canada or Mexico (regardless of their country of origin) who otherwise would be introduced into a congregate setting in a land (and, as amended, coastal) port of entry or USBP station at or near the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico. The CDC Order does not apply to, among others, U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and those who arrive at a port of entry with valid travel documents. 23 21 See Order Suspending the Right to Introduce Certain Persons from Countries Where a Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists, 85 FR 65806, 65807 (Oct. 16, 2020) (“CDC Order” or “Title 42 order”) (extending March 20, 2020 order, 85 FR 16559). 22 Id. at 65812. 23 Id. at 65808. Border encounters in FY 2021 remain high. To date, the data does suggest that single adults make up a greater percentage of apprehensions than in FY 2019 and, controlling for repeat encounters, the actual number of unique encounters (the number of unique individuals encountered irrespective of potential repeated attempts to enter) has been lower to date in FY 2021 than in FY 2019 (given the continuing use of Title 42 authority to expel many adults and families soon after they are apprehended). But total encounters at or near the southwest border through April for FY 2021 has surpassed the FY 2019 highs over the same period. The high number of southwest border apprehensions is presenting serious challenges for an already overwhelmed U.S. asylum system at the border. A. Improving the Expedited Removal Process The principal purpose of this proposed rule is to simultaneously increase both the efficiency and the procedural fairness of the expedited removal process for individuals who have been found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture. When individuals who have been placed into the expedited removal process make a fear claim, they are referred to a USCIS asylum officer, who interviews them to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution or torture. See INA 235(b)(1)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii). Under current procedures, individuals who receive a positive credible fear determination are referred to an immigration court for removal proceedings, in the course of which they have the opportunity to apply for asylum and other forms of relief or protection from removal. See 8 CFR 208.30(f) (2018) (providing that if a noncitizen, other than a stowaway, “is found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture, the asylum officer will so inform the [noncitizen] and issue a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, for full consideration of the asylum and withholding of removal claim in proceedings under section 240 of the Act”). As explained above, it may take years before the individual's protection claim is first adjudicated by an IJ. The ability to stay in the United States for years waiting for an initial decision may motivate unauthorized border crossings by individuals who otherwise would not have sought to enter the United States and who lack a meritorious protection claim. This delay creates additional stress for those ultimately determined to merit asylum and other forms of humanitarian protection, as they are left in limbo as to whether they might still be removed and unable to petition for qualified family members, some of whom may still be at risk of harm. To respond to this problem, this rule proposes at 8 CFR 208.2(a)(1)(ii) and 208.9 to provide USCIS asylum officers the authority to adjudicate in the first instance the protection claims of individuals who receive a positive credible fear determination, and that they do so in a nonadversarial hearing. The rule also proposes at 8 CFR 208.3(a)(2) that the record of a credible fear interview may serve as an asylum application for those noncitizens whose cases are retained by or referred to USCIS for adjudication after a positive credible fear determination, thereby helping to ensure that asylum seekers meet the statutory requirement to apply for asylum within one year of arrival. These steps are meant to ensure greater efficiency in the system, which was initially designed for protection claims to be the exception, not the rule, among those encountered at or near the border. The proposed rule will also stem the rapid growth of the EOIR caseload, described in greater detail above. As noted earlier, the current system for processing protection claims made by individuals encountered at or near the border and who establish credible fear was originally adopted in 1997. Within the last 3 years, however, several attempts have been made to issue new rules to change the credible fear screening process. Many of these attempts have been vacated or enjoined, and the implementation of others has been delayed pending consideration of whether they should be revised or rescinded. 24 24 On November 9, 2018, the Departments issued an interim final rule (“IFR”) that barred noncitizens who entered the United States in contravention of a covered Presidential proclamation or order from eligibility for asylum, required that they receive a negative credible fear finding on their asylum claims, and required that their statutory withholding and CAT claims be considered under the higher reasonable fear screening standard. See Aliens Subject to a Bar on Entry Under Certain Presidential Proclamations; Procedures for Protection Claims, 83 FR 55934, 55939, 55943 (Nov. 9, 2018). A month later, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily enjoined the Departments from implementing the rule, E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 354 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640, 680 (9th Cir. 2021). On July 16, 2019, the Departments published another IFR, entitled Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications, 84 FR 33829 (July 16, 2019), which generally barred noncitizens from asylum eligibility if they entered or attempted to enter the United States across the southwest border after failing to apply for protection from persecution or torture while in any one of the third countries through which they transited, required a negative credible fear finding for such noncitizens' asylum claims, and required their withholding and CAT claims be considered under the higher reasonable fear screening standard. Id. at 33837-38. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated that IFR after concluding that the Departments violated the Administrative Procedure Act by forgoing notice-and-comment rulemaking. Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coal. v. Trump, 471 F. Supp. 3d 25, 45-57 (D.D.C. 2020). The Departments issued a final rule on December 17, 2020, entitled Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications, 85 FR 82260 (Dec. 17, 2020), which again attempted to bar from asylum eligibility those noncitizens who transited a third country before arriving at the border. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California subsequently issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of that rule, which remains in place as of this writing. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, No. 19-cv-04073-JST, 2021 WL 607869, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2021). Around the same time, the Departments also issued the final rule entitled Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Review, 85 FR 80274 (Dec. 11, 2020) (“Global Asylum” rule). That rule revised the credible fear screening process to require that all the mandatory bars to asylum and withholding be considered during the credible fear screening process and established a new screening standard for withholding of removal and CAT protection. On January 8, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily enjoined the Departments from implementing the rule. Pangea Legal Servs. v. DHS, No. 20-cv-09253 JD, 2021 WL 75756, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021). That preliminary injunction remains in place. Finally, the Departments also published a final rule entitled Security Bars and Processing, 85 FR 84160 (Dec. 23, 2020) (“Security Bars” rule), which added an additional bar to asylum and withholding that would be applied to the credible fear screening process. The Departments have delayed the rule's effective date to December 31, 2021, see Security Bars and Processing; Delay of Effective Date, 86 FR 15069 (Mar. 22, 2021), as the Departments consider possible action to rescind or revise the rule. This proposed rule offers another approach. It would establish a streamlined and simplified adjudication process for individuals encountered at or near the border, placed into expedited removal, and determined to have a credible fear of persecution or torture, with the aim of deciding protection claims in a more timely fashion while ensuring procedural protections against erroneous denials of relief. 25 The proposed rule would authorize USCIS asylum officers to adjudicate in the first instance the protection claims of individuals who receive positive credible fear determinations under the expedited removal framework in section 235(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1). The procedures that USCIS asylum officers would use to adjudicate these claims would be nonadversarial, and the decisions would be made within timeframes more in line with those established by Congress in section 208(d)(5) of the INA. 26 25 Section 4(b)(i) of E.O. 14010 instructed the Secretary of Homeland Security to review the procedures for individuals placed into expedited removal at or near the border and issue a report with recommendations “for creating a more efficient and orderly process that facilitates timely adjudications [of asylum/protection claims] and adherence to standards of fairness and due process.” 86 FR at 8270. 26 See INA 208(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(5) (specifying that an initial hearing on an asylum application should generally occur within 45 days after the filing of the application and that an initial administrative decision should generally be made within 180 days). To ensure effective implementation of the expedited removal system, this rule also proposes to revise the parole considerations prior to a positive credible fear determination in 8 CFR 235.3. The current rule limits parole consideration before the credible fear determination to situations in which parole “is required to meet a medical emergency or is necessary for a legitimate law enforcement objective.” 8 CFR 235.3(b)(2)(iii), (b)(4)(ii). Under this proposed rule, DHS also would be able to consider whether parole is required “because detention is unavailable or impracticable.” The current narrower parole standards effectively prevent DHS from placing into expedited removal many noncitizens who would otherwise be eligible for this process, especially families, given the requirements of the Flores Settlement Agreement (“FSA”). 27 These restrictions on DHS's ability to detain families, coupled with capacity constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, have effectively prevented the Government from using the third option to detain families subject to expedited removal for more than a very limited number of families and for more than a very limited period of time. This proposed rule would, when finalized, eliminate that barrier to placing families into expedited removal. The proposed parole provision would allow more noncitizens arriving at the U.S. border without proper documents for entry into the country to be placed into expedited removal and allow for them to have their fear claims heard and considered outside the detention setting when space is unavailable or impracticable to use. 27 In 1985, a class-action suit challenged the policies of the former INS relating to the detention, processing, and release of alien children; the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged INS regulations on their face and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 315 (1993). In January 1997, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, referred to as the Flores Settlement Agreement. See Flores v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 720, 727 (9th Cir. 2020) (describing litigation history). The FSA was to terminate 5 years after the date of final court approval; however, the termination provisions were modified in 2001, such that the FSA does not terminate until 45 days after publication of regulations implementing the agreement. Id. In August 2019, DHS and HHS jointly issued a final rule entitled Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children, 84 FR 44392 (Aug. 23, 2019). In September 2019, about a month before the Final Rule was to take effect, a Federal district court granted the plaintiff class's motion to enforce the FSA and denied the government's motion to terminate it, because the final rule was inconsistent with the FSA and thus did not “implement[ ]” it as required by the FSA's termination provisions. See Flores v. Barr, 407 F. Supp. 3d 909, 914 (C.D. Cal. 2019). The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, and the provisions of the FSA that are relevant here thus generally remain in effect. See Flores v. Rosen, 984 F.3d at 737, 744. Under the requirements of the FSA, when DHS apprehends an alien parent or legal guardian with their child(ren) either illegally entering the United States between the ports of entry or found inadmissible at a port of entry, it has, following initiation of removal proceedings, three primary options for purposes of immigration custody: (1) Parole all family members into the United States; (2) detain the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) and either release the juvenile to another parent or legal guardian or transfer them to HHS to be treated as an unaccompanied child; or (3) detain family members together by placing them at an appropriate DHS Family Residential Center (“FRC”) during their immigration proceedings. See, e.g., id. at 737-38 (discussing “transfer of unaccompanied minors from DHS to HHS,” “DHS custodial care immediately following apprehension,” and parole). This proposed rule would apply prospectively and only to adults and families who are placed into expedited removal. 28 The proposed rule would not apply to unaccompanied children, see 6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2) (defining “unaccompanied alien child”), as they are statutorily exempt from expedited removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. 1232(a)(5)(D)(i) (providing that “any unaccompanied alien child” “shall be—(i) placed in removal proceedings under section 240” of the INA). 29 The proposed rule also would not apply to individuals already residing in the United States who are not designated by the Secretary as subject to expedited removal. 30 Such individuals would continue to have their asylum claims heard in removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA, or through an affirmative asylum application under section 208 of the INA if they have not yet been placed into removal proceedings. The proposed rule also would not apply to (1) stowaways or (2) noncitizens who are present in or arriving in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands who are determined to have a credible fear. Such individuals would continue to be referred to asylum/withholding-only proceedings before an IJ under 8 CFR 208.2(c). 28 According to EOIR data, as of April 2021, over 220,000 of EOIR's pending removal cases originated with a credible fear claim. EOIR, Executive Office for Immigration Review Adjudication Statistics: Pending I-862 Proceedings Originating With a Credible Fear Claim and All Pending I-862s (Apr. 19, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1112996/download. These cases are in various stages of the removal process, and hearings may have already been scheduled or held. Moving these cases to a new process at this stage would risk further delaying adjudication of their protection claims and create an immediate backlog of tens of thousands of cases for USCIS as it prepares to implement this proposed process for future border arrivals. 29 The statute provides that any unaccompanied child whom DHS seeks to remove shall be placed in removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA. In lieu of being placed in removal proceedings, unaccompanied children from contiguous countries who meet special criteria may be permitted to withdraw their applications for admission and be voluntarily returned to their country of nationality or country of last habitual residence. Actual removal proceedings for unaccompanied children, whether from contiguous countries or not, however, must be under section 240 of the INA. 30 See supra note 4. Finally, the Departments clarify that nothing in this proposed rule, if finalized, is intended to displace DHS's (and, in particular, USCIS's) prosecutorial discretion to place a covered noncitizen in, or to withdraw a covered noncitizen from, expedited removal proceedings and issue a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) to place the noncitizen in section 240 removal proceedings at any time after they are referred to USCIS for a credible fear determination. See Matter of E-R-M- & L-R-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 520, 523 (BIA 2011). The credible fear screening regulations proposed under this rule generally would recodify the current screening process, returning the regulatory language, in large part, to what was in place prior to the various regulatory changes made from the end of 2018 through the end of 2020. Noncitizens encountered at or near the border or ports of entry can be placed into expedited removal and provided a credible fear screening if they indicate an intention to apply for asylum, a fear of persecution or torture, or a fear of return to their home countries. See INA 235(b)(1)(A)(ii), (B), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii), (B); 8 CFR 235.3(b)(4), 1235.3(b)(4)(i). Individuals claiming a fear or an intention to apply for protection are referred to USCIS asylum officers for an interview and consideration of their fear claims under the credible fear screening standard, which applies to all relevant protection claims. If an asylum officer determines that an individual does not have a credible fear of persecution or torture, the individual can request that an IJ review the asylum officer's negative credible fear determination. See INA 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III); 8 CFR 208.30(g), 1208.30(g). If the IJ concurs with the asylum officer's negative credible fear determination, no administrative appeal is available, 8 CFR 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(A), and DHS can execute the individual's expedited removal order, promptly removing the individual from the United States. If the noncitizen is found to have a credible fear, however, the proposed rule would change the procedures in place prior to this rulemaking that are described above. Under this proposed rule, rather than referring the individual to an IJ for an adversarial removal proceeding under section 240 of the INA, or, as provided for in a presently-enjoined regulation, an asylum/withholding-only hearing, the individual's asylum application instead could be retained by USCIS for a nonadversarial hearing before an asylum officer. See 8 CFR 208.30(f) (proposed). Similarly, if, upon review of an asylum officer's negative credible fear determination, an IJ finds that an individual does have a credible fear of persecution or torture, the individual also could be referred back to an asylum officer for proceedings on the individual's protection claims. Id. §§ 1003.42, 1208.30(g). The Departments plan to implement these procedures by having asylum hearings conducted for those individuals who are referred to or retained by USCIS after the positive credible fear determination would be adjudicated in a separate queue, apart from adjudications made with respect to affirmative asylum applications filed directly with USCIS. The individual would have the right to representation during this proceeding. Id. § 208.9(b). If, at the conclusion of an asylum hearing described in this proposed rule, the asylum officer grants asylum, the individual would be allowed to remain in the United States indefinitely with the status of “asylee” and eventually may apply for lawful permanent residence. Id.; see also INA 208(c)(1), 209(b), 8 U.S.C. 1158(c)(1), 1159(b). If the asylum officer denies asylum and orders the individual removed based on the immigration officer's initial inadmissibility determination under section 235(b)(1)(A)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(i), the asylum officer will also issue a decision regarding withholding or deferral of removal. 8 CFR 208.14(c)(5) (proposed). An individual who is denied asylum may request review by an IJ of the asylum decision, as well as any denial of withholding or deferral of removal. Id. §§ 208.14(c)(5)(i), 1003.48(a). In cases in which a noncitizen seeks review of an asylum officer's adverse decision, the Departments propose that the IJ would make an independent de novo determination based on the record of the hearing before the Asylum Office plus any additional, non-duplicative evidence presented to the court that is necessary to reach a reasoned decision. Id. § 1003.48(e) (proposed). The individual would also have the right, consistent with the INA, to representation during this review. See 8 CFR 1003.12 (proposed) (providing that the rules in this subpart apply to the proposed proceedings under 8 CFR 1003.48); 8 CFR 1003.16(b) (providing that a noncitizen “may be represented in proceedings before an Immigration Judge by an attorney or other representative”). The IJ also would be authorized to vacate proceedings when the judge finds the individual is prima facie eligible for other forms of relief from removal, so that DHS, in the exercise of DHS's discretion, could place the noncitizen into removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a. See 8 CFR 1003.48(d) (proposed). Finally, the rule proposes that both parties would be able to appeal the IJ's decision to the BIA under procedures similar to those used in section 240 removal proceedings and asylum/withholding-only proceedings under 8 CFR 208.2(c), 1208.2(c). See 8 CFR 1003.1(b)(15) (proposed). In addition, the individual would be able to petition for review of the BIA decision with the Federal courts. See infra note 59. B. DOJ and DHS Authority To Propose This Rule The Attorney General and the Secretary jointly propose this rule pursuant to their respective authorities concerning asylum determinations. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (“HSA”), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, as amended, created DHS and transferred to it many functions related to the execution of Federal immigration law. The HSA charged the Secretary “with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens,” INA 103(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), and granted the power to take all actions “necessary for carrying out” the Secretary's authority under the immigration laws, INA 103(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3). The Secretary's authority also includes the authority to publish regulatory amendments governing the apprehension, inspection and admission, detention and removal, withholding of removal, and release of noncitizens encountered in the interior of the United States or at or between the U.S. ports of entry. INA 235, 236, 241, 8 U.S.C. 1225, 1226, 1231. The HSA thus transferred to DHS authority to adjudicate asylum applications, as well as the authority to conduct credible fear interviews and make credible fear determinations in the context of expedited removal. INA 235(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B); see also HSA 451(b), 6 U.S.C. 271(b) (providing for the transfer of adjudication of asylum and refugee applications from the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization to the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, now USCIS). By operation of the HSA, the reference to “Attorney General” in the INA is understood also to encompass the Secretary in matters with respect to immigration proceedings before DHS. That authority has been delegated within DHS to the Director of USCIS. See 8 CFR 208.2(a), 208.30. In addition, under the HSA, the Attorney General retained authority over individual immigration adjudications (including section 240 removal proceedings and certain adjudications related to asylum applications) conducted within EOIR. See HSA 1101(a), 6 U.S.C. 521(a); INA 103(g), 8 U.S.C. 1103(g). IJs within DOJ continue to adjudicate all asylum applications filed by noncitizens during the pendency of removal proceedings, and they also review asylum applications referred by USCIS to the immigration court. See INA 101(b)(4), 240(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(4), 1229a(a)(1); 8 CFR 1208.2(b), 1240.1(a). Section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), provides that if a noncitizen in expedited removal proceedings is determined to have a credible fear of persecution by an asylum officer, the noncitizen is entitled to “further consideration of the application for asylum.” This proposed rule addresses how that further consideration will occur. Section 208(d)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(1), provides the Attorney General with the authority to establish procedures for the consideration of asylum applications, including those filed in accordance with section 235(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b). See INA 208(a), 8 U.S.C. 1158(a). Section 103(a)(1) and (3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (3), authorizes the Secretary to establish rules and regulations governing parole. Section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), vests in the Secretary the discretionary authority to grant parole to applicants for admission on a case-by-case basis. C. The Current Asylum and Expedited Removal Process 1. Asylum The Refugee Act of 1980, Public Law 96-212, 94 Stat. 102, was the first comprehensive legislation to establish the modern refugee and asylum system in the United States. Asylum is a discretionary benefit that can be granted by the Attorney General or the Secretary if a noncitizen establishes, among other things, that they have experienced past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. INA 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1) (providing that the Attorney General “may” grant asylum to refugees); INA 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) (defining “refugee”). As long as they retain their asylee status, noncitizens who are granted asylum (1) cannot be removed or returned to their country of nationality or last habitual residence, (2) receive employment authorization incident to their status, and (3) may be permitted to apply for readmission after travel outside of the United States with prior consent from the Secretary. INA 208(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1158(c)(1); see Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 2271, 2286 (2021) (“[A] grant of asylum permits an alien to remain in the United States and to apply for permanent residency after one year[.]” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphases omitted)); 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(5) (employment authorization incident to asylum status); id. § 223.1(b) (readmission after travel for a “person who holds . . . asylum status pursuant to section 208 of the Act”). Asylum applications are presently classified based on the agency with jurisdiction over the noncitizen's case. If a noncitizen is physically present in the United States, not detained, and not in removal proceedings, the noncitizen may file an asylum application with USCIS. These applications are known as “affirmative” filings. If the noncitizen is in removal proceedings before an IJ, the noncitizen instead may file an application for asylum with the IJ as a defense to removal. Such “defensive” filings are currently the only route by which noncitizens referred to an IJ by a USCIS asylum officer after receiving a positive credible fear determination can obtain an adjudication of the merits of their asylum claims. Noncitizens who are ineligible for a grant of asylum, or who are denied asylum based on the Attorney General's or the Secretary's discretion, nonetheless may qualify for other forms of protection. An application for asylum submitted by a noncitizen in removal proceedings is also considered an application for statutory withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3). See 8 CFR 1208.3(b), 1208.13(c)(1). An IJ also may consider a noncitizen's eligibility for withholding and deferral of removal under regulations issued pursuant to the implementing legislation regarding U.S. obligations under Article 3 of the CAT. Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Public Law 105-277, div. G, sec. 2242(b), 112 Stat. 2681-761, 2681-822 (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1231 note (1999)); 8 CFR 1208.3(b), 1208.13(c)(1); see also id. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17. Withholding and deferral of removal bar a noncitizen's removal to any country where the noncitizen would “more likely than not” face persecution or torture, meaning that the noncitizen would face a clear probability that their life or freedom would be threatened because of a protected ground or a clear probability of torture. 8 CFR 1208.16(b)(2), (c)(2). Thus, if a noncitizen proves that it is more likely than not that the noncitizen's life or freedom would be threatened on account of a protected ground, but is denied asylum for some other reason—for instance, because of a statutory exception, an eligibility bar adopted by regulation, or a discretionary denial of asylum—the noncitizen nonetheless may be entitled to statutory withholding of removal if not otherwise barred from that form of protection. INA 241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 CFR 208.16, 1208.16. Likewise, a noncitizen who establishes that he or she more likely than not will face torture in the country of removal will qualify for CAT protection. See 8 CFR 208.16(c), 208.17(a), 1208.16(c), 1208.17(a). In contrast to the more generous benefits available through asylum, statutory withholding and CAT protection do not: (1) Prohibit the Government from removing the noncitizen to a third country where the noncitizen would not face the requisite likelihood of persecution or torture (even in the absence of an agreement with that third country); (2) create a path to lawful permanent resident status; or (3) afford the same ancillary benefits, such as derivative protection for family members. See, e.g., Guzman Chavez, 141 S. Ct. at 2286 (“distinguish[ing] withholding-only relief from asylum” on the ground that withholding does not preclude the Government from removing the noncitizen to a third country and does not provide the noncitizen any permanent right to remain in the United States); Matter of A-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 275, 279 (BIA 2007) (stating that “the Act does not permit derivative withholding of removal under any circumstances”); INA 208(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(3)(A) (statutory provision allowing asylum status to be granted to accompanying or following-to-join spouse or children of a noncitizen granted asylum; no equivalent statutory or regulatory provision for individuals granted withholding or deferral of removal). 2. Expedited Removal and Screenings in the Credible Fear Process In the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Public Law 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-546, Congress established the expedited removal process. The process is applicable to noncitizens arriving in the United States (and, in the discretion of the Secretary, certain other designated classes of noncitizens) who are found to be inadmissible under either section 212(a)(6)(C) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C), regarding material misrepresentations, or section 212(a)(7) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7), regarding documentation requirements for admission. Under expedited removal, such noncitizens may be “removed from the United States without further hearing or review unless the [noncitizen] indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution.” INA 235(b)(1)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). The former INS and, later, DHS implemented a screening process, known as the “credible fear” screening, to identify potentially valid claims for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and CAT protection, or, more specifically, to prevent noncitizens placed in expedited removal from being removed to a country in which they would face persecution or torture. Currently, with regulatory changes made from 2018 through 2020 either vacated, enjoined, or delayed, any noncitizen who expresses a fear of persecution or torture, a fear of return, or an intention to apply for asylum during the course of the expedited removal process is referred to a USCIS asylum officer for an interview to determine whether the noncitizen has a credible fear of persecution or torture in the country of return. INA 235(b)(1)(A)(ii), (B), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii), (B); see also 8 CFR 235.3(b)(4), 1235.3(b)(4)(i). If the asylum officer determines that the noncitizen does not have a credible fear of persecution or torture, the noncitizen may request that an IJ review that determination. See INA 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III); 8 CFR 208.30(g), 1208.30(g). Under the regulatory framework prior to November 2018 and currently in effect, 31 if the asylum officer determines that a noncitizen subject to expedited removal has a credible fear of persecution or torture, DHS refers the noncitizen to an immigration court for adjudication of the noncitizen's claims by initiating section 240 removal proceedings through service of an NTA on the noncitizen and with the court. See 8 CFR 208.30(f), 235.6(a)(1)(ii), 1235.6(a)(1)(ii) (2018). Similarly, if an IJ, upon review of the asylum officer's negative credible fear determination, finds that the noncitizen possesses a credible fear of persecution or torture, the IJ vacates the expedited removal order and DHS initiates section 240 removal proceedings. See id. 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(B). If the noncitizen subsequently decides to file for asylum, the asylum application is filed with the court during the section 240 removal proceedings, is considered a “defensively filed” application, and is subject to the one-year filing deadline. See INA 208(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B). There is no requirement that the noncitizen file an asylum application, however, once placed into section 240 removal proceedings. 31 See supra note 24 (discussing the status of more recent regulatory changes). III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule As noted in the summary above, this proposed rule would make several changes to the adjudication process of protection claims presented by noncitizens in expedited removal who both make fear claims and are determined to have a credible fear of persecution or torture. A more detailed explanation of the proposed changes, the reasons for these changes, and their alignment with the relevant statutes, as well as a brief outline of certain other changes proposed by this rule, follows. A. Parole—Proposed 8 CFR 235.3(b)(2)(iii) and (b)(4)(ii) The expedited removal statute provides for detention throughout the expedited removal process, including during the credible fear screening process and during the process for further consideration of the protection claims on their merits. The statute does not, however, limit DHS's general parole authority under section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), and 8 CFR 212.5(b), and the Departments have not understood the language providing for detention in expedited removal to limit this parole authority. Instead, parole authority in the context of expedited removal has been specifically provided for in the relevant regulations covering expedited removal and the credible fear screening process since they were first implemented in 1997. See Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens; Detention and Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal Proceedings; Asylum Procedures, 62 FR 10312, 10356 (Mar. 6, 1997) (interim final rule). And the U.S. Supreme Court recently acknowledged in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 837 (2018), that DHS may exercise its authority to temporarily parole persons subject to expedited removal, while also acknowledging that the relevant statutory language in section 235(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1), (b)(2), “unequivocally mandate that aliens falling within their scope `shall' be detained,” id. at 844. Since expedited removal's implementation regulations were first promulgated, parole consideration has been limited to a narrow category of circumstances for individuals awaiting a credible fear determination—when necessary “to meet a medical emergency or . . . for a legitimate law enforcement objective.” See 8 CFR 235.3(b)(2)(iii), (b)(4)(ii) (current). This proposed rule change would add to those grounds, allowing parole when “detention is unavailable or impracticable (including situations in which continued detention would unduly impact the health or safety of individuals with special vulnerabilities).” 8 CFR 235.3(b)(2)(iii), (b)(4)(ii) (proposed). This change would allow DHS to prioritize use of its limited detention bed space to detain those noncitizens who pose the greatest threats to national security and public safety, while avoiding unnecessary operational limitations on DHS's authority to place noncitizens into expedited removal. Under the proposed rule, when detention space is unavailable or its use is otherwise impracticable, DHS would have the option of using parole rather than placing nearly all families arriving at the border directly into section 240 removal proceedings. The proposed rule also makes clear that a grant of parole only authorizes release from custody and cannot serve as an independent basis for employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11). 32 See 8 CFR 235.3(b)(4)(ii) (proposed). The Departments are seeking public comment on this change in the circumstances under which parole may be considered in the expedited removal context, as well as the use of (c)(11) employment authorization documents (“EADs”) for those in expedited removal who have been paroled from custody. 32 As noted elsewhere in this preamble, this proposed rule is not intended to rescind previously enjoined or vacated rules. Accordingly, the Departments are proposing that those in the credible fear process who have been paroled from custody would be ineligible for a (c)(11) employment authorization document (“EAD”), similar to what was implemented with the final rule entitled Asylum Application, Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants, 85 FR 38532, 38582 (June 26, 2020). A Federal district court preliminarily enjoined certain provisions of the rule but only as applied to the plaintiffs in that case, and the EAD-parole provision similar to the one proposed here was not challenged in that litigation. See Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf, 486 F. Supp. 3d 928, 935 (D. Md. 2020) (“preliminarily enjoin[ing] Defendants from enforcing a subset of the rule changes as applied to the individual members of Plaintiffs Casa de Maryland, Inc. (`CASA') and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (`ASAP')”). The Departments are seeking public comment on the use of (c)(11) EADs for those in expedited removal who have been paroled from custody. B. Credible Fear Screening Process—Proposed 8 CFR 208.30 As noted earlier, there were several rules published by the Departments from the end of 2018 through the end of 2020 that attempted to change the credible fear screening process that had been in place for approximately 20 years, but these rules are not in effect. 33 The Global Asylum rule, which, as explained above, has been enjoined, attempted to change the pre-2018 practice of not applying the mandatory bars to asylum and statutory withholding in the credible fear screening process, instead requiring a final determination on the applicability of a significantly expanded list of mandatory bars during credible fear screenings and mandating a negative credible fear finding should any of the bars be determined to apply to the noncitizen at that initial stage. 85 FR at 80278. In addition, the Global Asylum rule attempted to alter the longstanding practice for screening claims for statutory withholding of removal and CAT protection. Prior to the rule, the statutory standard for screening asylum claims ( i.e., a “significant possibility” of establishing eligibility for asylum) was also used to screen withholding of removal and CAT claims. The Global Asylum rule attempted to create a more complicated two-step, two-standard screening by requiring a higher screening standard for such claims ( i.e., a “reasonable possibility” of persecution or torture). Id. The Security Bars rule, issued less than 2 weeks after the Global Asylum rule, further expanded the list of mandatory bars to asylum that would apply in the credible fear screening process, 85 FR at 84160, but its implementation has been delayed until the end of 2021, 86 FR at 15069. 33 See supra note 24. With this proposed rule, the Departments generally seek to return the credible fear screening process regulations to the simpler screening process that was in place for expedited removal's first two decades of implementation. Given the injunctions, delays, and vacaturs referenced above, this rule proposes to recodify in the Code of Federal Regulations the standard of “significant possibility” that has remained in effect since the rule changing that standard has been enjoined. Pangea Legal Servs. v. DHS, No. 20-cv-09253, 2021 WL 75756, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021) (preliminarily enjoining the Global Asylum rule). The Departments believe that this change will make for a more efficient and effective credible fear screening process and is also necessary to make that screening process consistent with congressional intent. The 104th Congress chose a screening standard “intended to be a low screening standard for admission into the usual full asylum process.” 34 Originally, the Senate bill had proposed a “determination of whether the asylum claim was `manifestly unfounded,' while the House bill applied a `significant possibility' standard coupled with an inquiry into whether there was a substantial likelihood that the alien's statements were true.” 35 In IIRIRA, Congress then “struck a compromise by rejecting the higher standard of credibility included in the House bill.” 36 This proposed regulation would now return the screening standard to the “low screening standard” intended by the compromise reflected in the text that Congress ultimately passed. Rather than creating a complicated screening process that requires full evidence gathering and determinations to be made on possible bars to eligibility, this proposed rule aims to return to allowing protection claims with a “significant possibility” of success to be fully heard and adjudicated, but in a process that more quickly reaches a final decision on the merits than the current process. 34 142 Cong. Rec. S11491 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 1996) (statement of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch). 35 Id. The chairman of the conference committee assigned to reconcile the two bills, Rep. Henry Hyde, stated that “[t]he credible fear standard is redrafted in the conference document to address fully concerns that the `more probable than not' language in the original House version was too restrictive.” 142 Cong. Rec. H11081 (daily ed. Sept. 25, 1996) (statement of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde). The exact language in section 302 of the House bill, H.R. 2202, 104th Cong. (1995), was as follows: “the term `credible fear of persecution' means (I) that it is more probable than not that the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's claim are true, and (II) that there is a significant possibility, in light of such statements and of such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum under section 208.” The conference committee compromise stuck subsection (I) from the definition of credible fear. 36 142 Cong. Rec. S11491 (statement of Sen. Hatch). To accomplish this, the proposed rule would replace all the references throughout 8 CFR 208.30 to a “credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or a reasonable possibility of torture” with “credible fear,” acknowledging that the statutory “significant possibility” standard, INA 235(b)(1)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(v), would be applied in considering all three types of protection claims—asylum, statutory withholding, and protection under the CAT. 37 Consistent with that change, the proposed rule would revise 8 CFR 208.30 to return the definition of the “credible fear” standard to the “significant possibility” definition provided in the statute (paragraph (e)(2)), replace the “reasonable possibility” standard with the same “significant possibility” screening standard for statutory withholding of removal and CAT withholding or deferral of removal (paragraphs (e)(2) and (3)), return the language in the regulation to reflect the existing and two-decade long practice of not applying the mandatory bars to the credible fear screening determination (paragraph (e)(5)), 38 maintain the threshold screening under the safe third country agreement with Canada (paragraph (e)(6)), and continue to require supervisory review of all credible fear determinations before they can become final (paragraph (e)(8)). The Departments seek comment on these changes and also request comment on whether any additional changes to the provisions of the Global Asylum and Security Bar rules are necessary or appropriate to accomplish the objectives outlined in this section. 37 These proposed changes would not alter reasonable fear of persecution or torture determinations involving noncitizens ordered removed under section 238(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1228(b), and noncitizens whose removal is reinstated under section 241(a)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(5), pursuant to 8 CFR 208.31. 38 This proposed rule does not, and is not intended to, rescind prior rulemakings, including Implementing Bilateral and Multilateral Asylum Cooperative Agreements Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 84 FR 63994 (Nov. 19, 2019); Aliens Subject to a Bar on Entry Under Certain Presidential Proclamations; Procedures for Protection Claims, 83 FR 55934 (Nov. 9, 2018); and Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications, 85 FR 82260 (Dec. 17, 2020). To that end, the Departments have proposed to change 8 CFR 208.30 only to the extent necessary to implement the changes proposed in this rule and left the remaining provisions of the aforementioned rules to be modified or rescinded by the Departments at a later date. See, e.g., OMB, Agenda Rule List—Spring 2021: Department of Homeland Security, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain?operation=OPERATION_GET_AGENCY_RULE_LIST¤tPub=true&agencyCode=&showStage=active&agencyCd=1600. The Departments, however, do seek comment on whether the changes proposed in this rule would require any other rescissions or modifications of the provisions adopted in recent prior rulemakings. As part of the proposed restructuring of the credible fear determination framework, the proposed rule would also remove the current language at 8 CFR 208.30(g)(2)(i) providing that DHS may reconsider a negative credible fear finding that has been reviewed and upheld by an IJ. 39 Section 208.30(g)(1)(i) would be revised to provide that once the asylum officer has made a negative credible fear determination, the individual either requests IJ review or declines to request review and that declination is treated as a request for review and the individual is served with a Form I-863. At that point, under the proposed rule, the IJ has sole jurisdiction to review whether the individual has established a credible fear of persecution or torture, and an asylum officer may not reconsider or reopen the determination. 39 The proposed versions of the Global Asylum rule and the Security Bars rule both dropped the regulatory provision previously in 8 CFR 1208.30(g)(2) that acknowledged USCIS's ability to reconsider a negative credible fear finding that had already received IJ concurrence, but the Departments responded to comments received about this change by reinserting the provision into 8 CFR 208.30(g) in the final rules, stating that the provision had been omitted from the proposed rule inadvertently. 85 FR at 80275, 84181. This proposed rule again proposes this change but does so for the reasons provided herein. These proposed changes reflect an intention to return to the statutory scheme of INA 235(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B), under which it is the IJ review of the credible fear determination that serves as the check to ensure that individuals who have a credible fear are not returned based on an erroneous screening determination by USCIS. Section 208.30(g)(1)(i) is amended to provide that, when DHS inquires whether an individual wishes to have an IJ review a negative credible fear determination, DHS will inform the individual that the IJ review will include an opportunity for the individual to be heard and questioned by the IJ. See 8 CFR 208.30(g)(1) (proposed). This opportunity will allow such individuals to present any additional evidence or arguments they may wish to make to the IJ, who will consider them in making a de novo determination about whether the individual has a credible fear of persecution or torture. The clarification that the IJ has sole jurisdiction to review the individual's negative credible fear determination and that asylum officers may not reconsider or reopen a determination that already has passed to the jurisdiction of the IJ is necessary to ensure that requests for reconsideration to USCIS do not obstruct the streamlined process that Congress intended in creating expedited removal. Further, this clarification ensures that the necessary efficiencies implemented in this proposed rule are not undermined. The expedited removal statute and its implementing regulations generally prohibit any further administrative review or appeal of an IJ's decision made after review of a negative credible fear determination. See INA 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III), (C), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III), (C); 8 CFR 1003.42(f)(2), 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(A). Congress similarly has made clear its intent that expedited removal should remain a streamlined, efficient process by limiting judicial review of many determinations in expedited removal. See INA 242(a)(2)(A), (e), 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(A), (e). These provisions limiting administrative and judicial review and directing expeditious determinations reflect clear congressional intent that expedited removal be a truly expedited process. Removal of the current language at 8 CFR 208.30(g)(2)(i) allowing DHS to reconsider negative credible fear determinations after the IJ concurs is consistent with that congressional intent and with the purpose of the current regulation. In recent years, USCIS has received growing numbers of meritless reconsideration requests, which have strained agency resources and resulted in significant delays to the expedited removal process. The total time to review a reconsideration request varies widely, but if an office recommends a follow-up interview, then the complete review process could take more than 5 hours per request. The Departments believe that these resources could be far better spent, including in training and supervisory efforts, to ensure the high quality of USCIS initial screening determinations. In many cases, reconsideration requests that previously were considered are resubmitted numerous times without additional information, resulting in additional delays in removal processes that Congress explicitly intended to be conducted through streamlined, efficient procedures. These developments have highlighted the need to ensure that the IJ review process, rather than reconsideration by USCIS, serves as the safeguard against erroneous negative screening determinations by an asylum officer. These changes will ensure that DOJ and DHS implementation of the expedited removal provisions is consistent with statutory intent. The Departments believe these changes will help accomplish the purpose of the present rule to make the framework of the screening process, including the process following USCIS's fear determination, more efficient and streamlined, while ensuring due process is accorded to all individuals in expedited removal. The Departments seek comments on these proposed changes, including on other options short of eliminating reconsideration entirely—such as imposing restrictions on, or modifications to, reconsideration requests made to USCIS—to address the problems outlined above, while also ensuring efficiency and the opportunity to have one's protection claim properly screened. C. Applications for Asylum—Proposed 8 CFR 208.3(a) and 208.9(a) The expedited removal statute specifically provides for an exception to the mandate that a noncitizen be “removed from the United States without further hearing or review” when the noncitizen expresses an intention to apply for asylum, a fear of persecution or torture, or a fear of return to the country of removal. Such a person instead is referred to USCIS for a credible fear screening. INA 235(b)(1)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii). If the noncitizen is found to have a credible fear of removal, the noncitizen's claim is referred for “further consideration of the application for asylum.” INA 235(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). This statutory language, however, does not specify the nature of such “further consideration.” Under current regulations, an individual who establishes a credible fear is placed into removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a. Under this process, the individual is not required to officially request asylum or file the Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“Form I-589”), until after being placed into removal proceedings. In many cases, the application may be filed many months after removal proceedings are initiated, thus potentially delaying adjudication. In many other cases, an application is never filed. EOIR has reported that, for individuals who were referred to USCIS for the credible fear screening process and then placed into proceedings before EOIR between FY 2008 and the third quarter of FY 2020, only 62 percent have filed an asylum application with EOIR as of July 2020. 40 40 EOIR, Executive Office for Immigration Review Adjudication Statistics: Rates of Asylum Filings in Cases Originating with a Credible Fear Claim (July 2020), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1062971/download. Under this proposed rule, an individual who passes the initial credible fear screening would have his claim reviewed by an asylum officer in USCIS in the first instance, rather than by an IJ in a removal hearing under section 240 of the INA. As part of this new procedure for “further consideration,” and to eliminate delays between a positive credible fear determination and the filing of an application for asylum, the Departments propose that the written record of the credible fear determination created by USCIS during the credible fear process, and subsequently served on the individual together with the service of the credible fear decision itself, would be treated as an “application for asylum,” with the date of service on the individual considered the date of filing. 8 CFR 208.3(a)(2) (proposed). Every individual who receives a positive credible fear determination would be considered to have filed an application for asylum at the time the determination is served on him or her. The application would be considered filed or received as of the service date for purposes of the 1-year filing deadline for asylum, see INA 208(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B), and for starting the clock for eligibility to file for work authorization on the basis of a pending asylum application, 8 CFR 208.3(c)(3) (current). The Departments propose that this application for asylum would not be subject to the completeness requirement of 8 CFR 208.3(c) and 208.9(a) in order to qualify for hearing and adjudication, but it would be subject to the other conditions and consequences provided for in 8 CFR 208.3(c) once the noncitizen signs the documentation under penalty of perjury and with notice of the consequences of the filing of a frivolous asylum application at the time of the asylum officer hearing. 41 41 In addition, the Departments are proposing to amend 8 CFR 1208.3 and 1208.4 to account for changes made by this proposed rule, including the proposed provisions that would treat the credible fear interviews as an application for asylum in the circumstances addressed by the proposed rule. The amendment at 8 CFR 1208.3(c)(3) affects language that was enacted by DOJ in 2020. See Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, 85 FR 81698 (Dec. 16, 2020). The December 16, 2020 rulemaking made various changes to DOJ regulations, including 8 CFR 1208.3(c)(3). Id. Those changes remain enjoined. See National Immigrant Justice Center, et. al., v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review, et. al., No. 21-CV-00056 (D.D.C.). As noted above, the proposed rule would make changes to the regulations only as necessary to effectuate its goals. The Departments anticipate that additional changes to the relevant regulations, including rescission of or revision to the language added by the enjoined regulation, will be made through later rulemakings. The Departments plan to implement these changes to the credible fear process by having the trained USCIS asylum officer conducting the credible fear interview advise the noncitizen of the consequences of filing a frivolous asylum application and capture the noncitizen's relevant information through testimony provided under oath. During this process, the asylum officer would “elicit all relevant and useful information” for the credible fear determination, id. § 208.30(d), create a summary of the material facts presented by the noncitizen during the interview, read the summary back to the noncitizen, and allow the noncitizen to correct any errors, id. § 208.30(d)(6). The record created would contain the necessary biographical information and sufficient information related to the noncitizen's fear claim to be considered an application. The information captured by the asylum officer during the credible fear interview will contain information about the noncitizen's spouse and children, including those who were not part of the credible fear determination—but under this proposed rule only a spouse or children who were included in the credible fear determination issued pursuant to proposed 8 CFR 208.30(c) or have a pending asylum application with USCIS pursuant to § 208.2(a)(1)(ii) can be included on the request for asylum. 42 See id. § 208.3(a)(2). A copy of this application for asylum, including the officer's notes from the interview and basis for the determination, would be provided to the noncitizen at the time that the credible fear determination is served. See id. § 208.30(f), (g)(1). As proposed in this rule, the noncitizen would be allowed to supplement or request modifications or corrections to this application up until 7 days prior to the scheduled asylum hearing before a USCIS asylum officer, or for documents submitted by mail, postmarked no later than 10 days before the scheduled asylum hearing. Id. § 208.3(a)(2). 42 While only a spouse or dependent included on the credible fear determination or who presently has an asylum application pending with USCIS after a positive credible fear determination can be included on the subsequent asylum application under this proposed process, the noncitizen granted asylum remains eligible to apply for accompanying or follow-to-join benefits for any qualified spouse or child not included on the asylum application, as provided for in 8 CFR 208.21. The Departments believe that it is procedurally impractical to attempt to include a spouse or child on the application when the spouse or child has not previously been placed into expedited removal and subsequently referred to USCIS after a positive credible fear determination. This is similar to the inability to include a spouse or child not in removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA on the asylum application of a principal asylum application who is in such removal proceedings. Under such circumstances, there is no clear basis for issuing a final order of removal against such an individual spouse or child should the asylum application be denied. The Departments seek comments on this proposed approach. The information required to be gathered during the credible fear screening process is based on the noncitizen's own testimony under oath in response to questions from a trained USCIS asylum officer. Thus, the Departments believe that the screening would provide sufficient information upon which to conduct a full asylum interview. Under this proposed rule, all noncitizens who receive a positive credible fear determination would have an asylum application on file with the Government within days of their credible fear screenings, thereby meeting the one-year asylum filing deadline, avoiding the risk of filing delays, and immediately beginning the waiting period for work authorization eligibility. Understanding that noncitizens may want to modify, correct, or supplement the initial presentation of their protection claims, this proposed rule would allow the noncitizen to do so in advance of the hearing before the asylum officer. The Departments seek comments on all aspects of this proposed change. D. Proceedings for Further Consideration of the Application for Asylum by USCIS Asylum Officer in Asylum and Withholding Merits Hearing for Noncitizens With Credible Fear—Proposed 8 CFR 208.2(a) and (c); 208.9(a), (f), and (g); 208.14(c)(5); 208.30(e) and (f); 235.6(a)(1); 1003.42; and 1208.30(g) As noted earlier in the preamble, under the current regulatory framework, if an asylum officer determines that a noncitizen subject to expedited removal has a credible fear of persecution or torture, DHS places the noncitizen before an immigration court for adjudication of the noncitizen's claims by initiating section 240 removal proceedings. 43 Similarly, if an IJ, upon review of the asylum officer's negative credible fear determination, finds that the noncitizen possesses a credible fear of persecution or torture, the IJ vacates the expedited removal order, and DHS initiates section 240 removal proceedings. 8 CFR 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(B). Section 240 removal proceedings, which are used to determine removability as well as eligibility for any relief or protection from removal, currently provide additional procedural protections, including greater administrative and judicial review, than expedited removal proceedings under section 235 of the Act. Compare INA 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1), with INA 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a. 43 See 8 CFR 208.30(f) (2018); supra note 24 (explaining that various changes to these procedures have been enjoined). As noted previously, however, the expedited removal statute provides only that a noncitizen who is found to have a credible fear “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.” INA 235(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). The statute mandates neither that the noncitizen be placed in removal proceedings generally nor placed in section 240 removal proceedings specifically. Id. The regulations regarding the credible fear process, and the interplay between expedited removal and section 240 removal proceedings, were first adopted in 1997. 44 At the time, the former INS explicitly recognized that “the statute is silent as to the procedures for those who do demonstrate a credible fear of persecution.” 45 Faced with this ambiguity, the INS opted at the time to have the further consideration take place in pre-existing section 240 removal proceedings rather than create new proceedings for this purpose. 46 But the INS's contemporaneous analysis was very limited. 44 Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens; Detention and Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal Proceedings; Asylum Procedures, 62 FR 10312 (Mar. 6, 1997) (interim final rule). 45 Id. at 10320; see Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens; Detention and Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal Proceedings; Asylum Procedures, 62 FR 444, 447 (Jan. 3, 1997) (proposed rule) (noting that although the statute calls for further consideration of the noncitizen's asylum application, it “does not specify how or by whom this further consideration should be conducted”). 46 62 FR at 10320. The Departments believe that section 235(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1), authorizes a procedure for “further consideration of [an] application for asylum” that is separate from section 240 removal proceedings. By its terms, the phrase “further consideration” is open-ended and does not mandate any particular procedure. It is thus naturally read as giving DHS flexibility to determine the appropriate procedure for consideration of noncitizens' asylum claims after establishing a credible fear in the expedited removal process. Moreover, while section 235(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1), mandates that a noncitizen with a positive credible fear determination receive “further consideration of [the noncitizen's] application for asylum,” section 235(b)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2), mandates that other classes of noncitizens receive “a proceeding under section 1229a of this title,” i.e., section 240 of the INA. Compare INA 235(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), with INA 235(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A). The difference in language suggests that section 235(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1), does not require use of section 240 removal proceedings, in contrast to section 235(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2), which does. The Supreme Court has observed that “[w]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). More recently, the D.C. Circuit stated that it has “consistently recognized that a congressional mandate in one section and silence in another often suggests not a prohibition but simply a decision not to mandate any solution in the second context, i.e., to leave the question to agency discretion.” Catawba Cty., N.C. v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 36 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 47 The inference that Congress's silence intentionally permits agency discretion is reinforced by the fact that the noncitizens whom DHS has elected to process into the United States using the expedited removal procedure are expressly excluded from the class of noncitizens who are statutorily guaranteed section 240 removal proceedings under section 235(b)(2)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A). See INA 235(b)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(B)(ii). 47 See also Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718, 1723 (2017) (“[U]sually at least, . . . we presume differences in language . . . convey differences in meaning.”). Second, a noncitizen with a positive credible fear determination is entitled only to a further proceeding related to their “application for asylum,” or for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1251(b)(3), or withholding or deferral of removal under the regulations implementing U.S. obligations under Article 3 of the CAT. INA 235(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii); 8 CFR 208.30(e). An asylum application's purpose is to determine whether the noncitizen is entitled to relief or protection from removal, not whether the noncitizen should be admitted or granted other immigration benefits. See Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 141 S. Ct. 1809, 1813 (2021) (“[A] foreign national can be in lawful status but not admitted—think of someone who entered the country unlawfully, but then received asylum.”); Matter of V-X-, 26 I&N Dec. 147, 150 (BIA 2013) (holding that, “although [a noncitizen's] grant of asylum confer[s] a lawful status upon him, it [does] not entail an `admission' ”). By contrast, the purpose of a section 240 removal proceeding is to “determin[e] whether [a noncitizen] may be admitted to the United States.” INA 240(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(a)(3). In section 240 removal proceedings, both removability and entitlement to various forms of relief or protection are determined. Compare INA 235(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), with INA 240(c)(2)-(4), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(2)-(4). 48 Moreover, the Departments believe that it is better policy to place noncitizens with a positive credible fear determination initially in nonadversarial proceedings in which their asylum claims can be adjudicated by asylum officers. 48 The Departments acknowledge that there is some legislative history suggesting that some Members of Congress believed that individuals found to have a credible fear would be referred to section 240 removal proceedings. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 104-828, at 209 (1996) (suggesting that noncitizens who received positive credible fear determinations would be placed in “normal non-expedited removal proceedings”). But the Departments are not convinced that the legislative history is sufficiently clear to foreclose an option the text itself does not “unambiguously forbid.” Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 218 (2002). Indeed, other Members of Congress took a different view. See Letter for Richard A. Sloan, Director, Policy Directives and Instructions Branch, Immigration and Naturalization Service, from Lamar Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Re: INS 1788-96, RIN 1115-AE47 (Feb. 3, 1997), in Implementation to Title III of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 21-22 (1997) (“Section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) [was] drafted deliberately to leave flexibility regarding how the asylum adjudication would take place.”). The idea of allowing USCIS asylum officers to fully adjudicate the protection claims made by noncitizens who receive a positive credible fear determination is not new. In its congressionally mandated 2005 report on the expedited removal process, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (“USCIRF”) recommended that asylum officers be allowed to grant asylum to ease “the burden on the detention system, the immigration courts, and bona fide asylum seekers in Expedited Removal.” 49 The USCIRF repeated this recommendation when it conducted a follow-up study and issued an updated report in 2016, stating as follows: 49 USCIRF, Report on Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal, Volume I: Findings & Recommendations 66 (Feb. 2005), https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/resources/stories/pdf/asylum_seekers/Volume_I.pdf. One solution to reduce the immigration courts' caseload and backlog is to allow asylum officers to adjudicate defensive asylum claims, as USCIRF recommended in the 2005 Study. Asylum officers have the legal background and training to adjudicate asylum claims, and do so for affirmative asylum cases. Further, having an asylum officer review a credible fear claim and then having an immigration judge review an asylum claim creates significant redundancy without necessarily adding value. 50 50 USCIRF, Barriers to Protection: The Treatment of Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal 54 (Aug. 2016), https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Barriers%20To%20Protection.pdf. In 2012, the Administrative Conference of the United States studied the removal process and also issued recommendations that regulations be changed to allow for asylum officers to adjudicate protection claims for noncitizens determined to have a credible fear as part of a package of proposals to improve the operations of the immigration courts. 51 More recently, experts from the Migration Policy Institute (“MPI”) reached a similar conclusion in a 2018 report on the state of the U.S. asylum system. MPI concluded as follows: 51 Administrative Conference of the United States, Administrative Conference Recommendation 2012-3: Immigration Removal Adjudication 15 (June 15, 2012), https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012-3.pdf. Allowing cases with positive credible-fear findings to instead remain with the Asylum Division for the full asylum merits adjudication would capitalize on the investment of time and expertise the division has already made. It would also enable meritorious cases to be resolved more quickly, reducing the overall asylum system backlogs and using limited asylum officer and IJ resources more efficiently. 52 52 Doris Meissner, Faye Hipsman, & T. Alexander Aleinikoff, The U.S. Asylum System in Crisis: Charting a Way Forward 3, Migration Policy Institute (Sept. 2018), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/MPI-AsylumSystemInCrisis-Final.pdf. In reaching this conclusion, these experts noted that moving the cases to the USCIS Asylum Division for adjudication plays to its strengths, including its experience in handling asylum and asylum-related adjudications; its regular trainings on asylum-related country conditions and legal issues, as well as nonadversarial interviewing techniques; and its ready access to country conditions experts. Additionally, the MPI experts concluded that nonadversarial proceedings are well suited for this process because they are “considerably less resource-intensive than immigration court proceedings” and “lend themselves to a fuller understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of an applicant's case.” 53 The DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council's (“HSAC”) bipartisan CBP Families and Children Care Panel also included this recommendation in its final report to the Secretary. 54 This panel of the HSAC was created at the request of the Secretary in October 2018 to study “the burgeoning humanitarian crisis resulting from a surge in migration of families, primarily from Guatemala and Honduras, overwhelming the DHS resources at the border to address the crisis.” 55 53 Id. at 26. 54 HSAC, CBP Families and Children Care Panel Final Report 24 (Nov. 14, 2019), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/fccp_final_report_1.pdf. 55 Id. at 4. The Departments acknowledge that the above recommendations assumed that individuals denied asylum by a USCIS asylum officer would be issued an NTA and placed into section 240 removal proceedings before an IJ, where the noncitizen would have a second, full evidentiary hearing on the asylum application with a different decision-maker. This proposed rule would not adopt that approach, as the Departments determined it was unnecessary, duplicative, and inefficient. Instead, as noted in the previous section, this proposed rule would establish a new process that would require the IJ to conduct a de novo review of a denied application for protection when such review is requested, but it would not provide the noncitizen with a second full evidentiary hearing to present the claim. The Departments believe that an approach requiring a full evidentiary hearing before an IJ after an asylum officer's denial would lead to inefficiencies without adding additional value or procedural protections. Under this proposal, the asylum officer will have developed and considered the noncitizen's claim fully, including by taking testimony and accepting evidence, during the nonadversarial proceeding. If a noncitizen seeks review of an asylum officer's denial, the IJ would have a complete record for review developed by the asylum officer (including a transcript of the hearing and any evidence offered by the applicant or otherwise considered by the officer) and the written decision of the asylum officer. The noncitizen would have a full opportunity to challenge the asylum officer's denial during this review process and would not need to present their claim at a second full hearing. Instead, to the extent that a noncitizen seeks to introduce additional non-duplicative testimony or evidence, a provision of the proposed rule would allow them to do so if certain requirements are met. See 8 CFR 1003.48(e) (proposed). Accordingly, the Departments believe that a second full evidentiary hearing before an IJ is unnecessary and inefficient. A further description of the proposed review process follows in the next section. This proposed rule would change current procedures to allow a noncitizen who is found to have a credible fear to have a full adjudication of the noncitizen's protection claims by an asylum officer. 8 CFR 208.2(a) (proposed) (revising jurisdiction over asylum applications in order to provide USCIS jurisdiction to hear asylum claims after a positive credible fear determination), id. § 208.30(f) (retention of a positive credible fear determination with USCIS for an asylum hearing); id. §§ 1003.42, 1208.30(g) (referral of negative credible fear determinations vacated by an IJ to USCIS for an asylum hearing). This would supplant the process in place prior to this proposed rule whereby DHS referred such an individual directly to an IJ for an adversarial hearing in a section 240 removal proceeding. Proposed 8 CFR 1003.42 and 1208.30(g) of the EOIR regulations reflect similar changes, enabling an IJ who vacates an asylum officer's negative credible fear determination to refer the case back to USCIS for an asylum hearing. The Departments propose to make corresponding amendments to 8 CFR 208.2(c), 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5) and (f), and 8 CFR 235.6(a)(1) to provide that the cases of individuals who receive a positive credible fear determination may be retained by USCIS for a nonadversarial hearing before a USCIS asylum officer under the jurisdiction of 8 CFR 208.2(a)(1)(ii) to determine eligibility for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and withholding of deferral or removal under CAT. The Departments also propose to amend 8 CFR 1003.1, 8 CFR 1003.12, 8 CFR 1208.2, and 8 CFR 1208.30 of the EOIR regulations, and to add a new section 8 CFR 1003.48, to make corresponding changes regarding how and when cases involving individuals found to have a credible fear would be referred by DHS to EOIR. The proposed nonadversarial proceedings for further consideration of asylum applications by asylum officers would provide protections similar to those provided in section 240 removal proceedings. The asylum officer's consideration under this proposal, however, would be limited solely to claims for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and withholding or deferral of removal under the CAT regulations. 8 CFR 208.2(a)(2) (proposed). Under this proposed rule, if the asylum officer denies the noncitizen asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT regulations, the noncitizen would be ordered removed based upon the immigration officer's earlier inadmissibility determination under section 235(b)(1)(A)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). The noncitizen, may, however appeal an adverse decision to an IJ, and if necessary, to the BIA. 8 CFR 208.14(c)(5), 1003.1(b)(15), 1208.2(b). To allow asylum officers to carry out this new responsibility fully, additional changes to the regulations have been proposed. First, the Departments propose that under 8 CFR 208.9(f), asylum officers would be required to record the asylum hearing and that a transcript of that recording would be made part of the record whenever a noncitizen denied protection seeks review of a denial. USCIS would transcribe the asylum hearing recording and a copy of the transcript and the record developed at the hearing would be served on the applicant and filed with the immigration court. The hearing would be transcribed prior to the record being referred for review. Second, the Departments propose that USCIS be required to provide an interpreter for any hearing, just as EOIR is required to do for a removal hearing. 8 CFR 208.9(g) (proposed). Third, as in section 240 removal proceedings, the Departments propose that the noncitizen would be entitled to be represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the noncitizen's choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings. See id. § 1003.12 (proposed), 1003.16 (current); cf. 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(4). The Departments propose that the “failure to appear” rule at 8 CFR 208.10 be revised to allow for an order of removal to be issued when the noncitizen fails to appear for the scheduled hearing with the asylum officer. Changes to 8 CFR 208.16 through 208.19 also are proposed in order to provide asylum officers authority to adjudicate claims for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3), and withholding and deferral of removal under the regulations implementing the CAT. Existing 8 CFR 208.14(b) already provides USCIS the authority to grant an asylum application properly within USCIS's jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction given USCIS by this proposed rule over asylum applications from noncitizens determined to have a credible fear. Similar authority is provided for immigration judges in existing 8 CFR 1208.14. Finally, the Departments propose that 8 CFR 208.14(c)(5) be added to provide the process for USCIS to deny an application for asylum, including the issuance of a decision on withholding and deferral of removal if asylum is denied; the issuance of an order of removal by the asylum officer after the merits hearing; and the process for the applicant to seek review of an asylum denial before an IJ. Review of these decisions would be governed by proposed 8 CFR 1003.48. The Departments also propose technical edits to 8 CFR 208.22 to include references to corresponding sections of both 8 CFR part 208 and 8 CFR part 1208. The Departments seek comments on all aspects of these proposed changes, including whether different or additional decision and review procedures should apply to applications considered under this proposed process. The authority of asylum officers to enter an order of removal after denying a noncitizen's asylum claim follows from the relevant provisions of the INA. By definition, noncitizens who are placed into expedited removal already have been determined to be inadmissible and are protected from immediate removal only because their credible fear of persecution entitled them to further consideration of their asylum claim. See INA 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1). If, after that further consideration, an asylum officer concludes that a noncitizen is not entitled to asylum, that determination removes the only remaining legal barrier to removal. That determination qualifies as an order of removal under the relevant statutory definition, which provides that an “order of deportation” includes not only an order “ordering deportation,” but also an order “concluding that [a noncitizen] is deportable.” INA 101(a)(47)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(47)(A). The Seventh Circuit reached the same conclusion in addressing another class of noncitizens whose only defense to removal is a potential asylum claim: Those who entered under the visa-waiver program, INA 217(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1187(b)(2). The court explained that an order denying such a noncitizen's asylum claim is an order of removal because “an order that is proper only if the [noncitizen] is remov able implies an order of removal.” Mitondo v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 2008). This proposed rule therefore would provide that if the noncitizen is not granted asylum at the conclusion of the asylum hearing, the asylum officer is authorized to issue an order of removal. E. Application Review Proceedings Before the Immigration Judge—Proposed 8 CFR 1208.2(c), 1003.48 The Departments propose to amend 8 CFR 1208.2(c) and add 8 CFR 1003.48 to establish new IJ review proceedings for those noncitizens who establish a credible fear of persecution or torture but (1) were found by USCIS not to merit asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT and its implementing regulations; and (2) affirmatively request further review of their applications by an IJ. The Departments propose that upon a referral of the case from USCIS, the IJ would conduct a de novo review of USCIS's denial of the claims. Under these proposed limited review proceedings, unlike under section 240 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a, the IJ would not have authority to consider issues related to a noncitizen's removability or a noncitizen's eligibility for any other relief from removal. Moreover, an IJ ordinarily would not conduct an evidentiary hearing on the noncitizen's asylum application. Rather, the IJ would determine, after de novo review of the full record of proceedings created during asylum officer hearings and consideration of any additional testimony or evidence permitted under the proposed process described below, whether a noncitizen is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal under the Act or withholding or deferral of removal under the CAT. Although the Departments intend these proceedings to be more streamlined than section 240 removal proceedings, asylum officer and IJ review, together, would provide significant protections to ensure that these noncitizens continue to receive full and fair adjudication of their applications. For noncitizens who affirmatively request further review by an IJ, the Departments propose that DHS would initiate the review proceedings through the service of a Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, on the noncitizen. As proposed in 8 CFR 1003.48(b), DHS would file the following items with the immigration court: (1) A copy of the Notice of Referral; (2) a copy of the record of proceedings before the asylum officer, as outlined in 8 CFR 208.9(f); (3) the asylum officer's written decision, including the removal order issued under 8 CFR 208.14(c)(5) by the asylum officer; and (4) proof that DHS served the Notice of Referral, the record of proceedings, and the asylum officer's written decision, including the removal order, on the noncitizen. Unlike in credible fear determination reviews, where the IJ is provided only asylum officers' notes from the interview, the summary of the material facts, and other limited records, see, e.g., 8 CFR 208.30(e)(4), the proposed requirements in 8 CFR 1003.48(b) would ensure that cases would only be referred to the immigration courts following asylum officers' full nonadversarial adjudication of the noncitizens' applications, and that IJs and noncitizens would have asylum officers' decisions and complete records of the hearings in advance of the IJ review. This would allow the noncitizen to have notice of the reasons for the asylum officer's denial in advance of the immigration court review process, and it would allow the IJ to conduct a thorough review of the asylum officer's decision based on the application and complete record developed before the asylum officer. Accordingly, because the IJ would be provided the complete record of proceedings from the asylum officer hearing, the Departments expect that the IJ generally would be able to complete the de novo review solely on the basis of the record before the asylum officer, taking into consideration any arguments raised by the noncitizen, or the noncitizen's counsel, and DHS. That said, the proposed rule recognizes that the factual record as elicited by the asylum officer sometimes will need to be further developed before the IJ. The rule proposes at 8 CFR 1003.48(e) that an IJ does not have the authority to remand a case to an asylum officer because the Departments believe that this would be unnecessary and inefficient. Instead, the rule proposes that a party may seek to introduce additional testimony or documentation so long as the party demonstrates to the IJ that the testimony or documentation is not duplicative of the testimony or documentation considered by the asylum officer and that it is necessary to develop the factual record to allow the IJ to issue a reasoned decision in the case. The Departments expect that an IJ may, in appropriate cases, require parties to submit prehearing statements or briefs concerning whether they will seek to introduce additional testimony or documentation and, if so, explaining why this testimony or documentation meets the standard at 8 CFR 1003.48(e). The Departments further expect that, where necessary, for example in cases involving pro se applicants, IJs will, before proceeding with the case, explain in court the standards for submitting additional testimony and documentation. This proposed provision would ensure a full and fair evaluation of the applicant's application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Act, or withholding or deferral of removal under the CAT. The Departments believe that this proposed regulatory scheme—under which IJs typically would rely on the record created at the asylum officer hearing but could allow additional testimony and evidence if a party establishes that doing so is necessary—is the best way to balance efficiency and fairness considerations appropriately. 56 The Departments believe that these proceedings, as proposed, will be more streamlined than removal proceedings but will still provide the parties with a fair opportunity to present their cases. Nevertheless, the Departments understand that there are alternative threshold standards for the introduction of evidence or the reopening of proceedings. 57 Accordingly, the Departments request the public's comments on the proposed evidentiary threshold requirements, including any suggestions for alternatives that balance efficiency and fairness considerations, particularly taking into account challenges pro se applicants for asylum and related protection sometimes face in developing their claims. 56 See, e.g., INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107 (1988) (“There is a strong public interest in bringing litigation to a close as promptly as is consistent with the interest in giving the adversaries a fair opportunity to develop and present their respective cases.”). 57 See, e.g., Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (providing that the moving party generally must demonstrate that “new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case” in order for the BIA to consider granting a discretionary motion to remand). To ensure that noncitizens have a full and fair opportunity to prepare for and receive review of their claims, the Departments propose that many of the procedural safeguards that apply in section 240 removal proceedings would apply to the IJ review proceedings as well. Unless specifically indicated in 8 CFR 1003.48 of the EOIR proposed rules, the general rules of procedure that apply in removal proceedings before the immigration courts also would apply to these proceedings. This would include a noncitizen's rights (1) to obtain representation by an attorney or other representative authorized to appear before the immigration court, at no cost to the Government, see 8 CFR 1003.16(b); (2) to seek a change of venue, see id. § 1003.20(b); and (3) to seek a continuance for good cause shown, see id. § 1003.29. Moreover, the provisions of 8 CFR 1003.2 and 1003.23 governing motions to reopen and reconsider generally would be applicable to decisions rendered by IJs or the BIA in these proceedings. The Departments also propose to add a cross-reference in 8 CFR 1003.12 to the new proceedings under 8 CFR 1003.48 to codify these procedural protections. The rule further proposes at 8 CFR 1003.48(d) that the IJ would have the discretion, pursuant to a motion filed by an applicant, to vacate the asylum officer's order of removal. For the motion to be granted, the applicant would have to show that he or she is prima facie eligible for a form of relief that cannot be granted in proceedings under 8 CFR 1003.48. With the motion granted, DHS would have the discretion to place the applicant in removal proceedings. An applicant would be permitted to file only one such motion, the motion would have to be filed before the IJ issues a decision on the applications for asylum and related protection, and motions to apply for voluntary departure would not be granted. The Departments believe these limitations are appropriate given the goal of meaningfully streamlining these proceedings as compared with removal proceedings. That said, the Departments seek the public's comments on whether the provisions relating to motions to vacate removal orders appropriately balance fairness and efficiency considerations. In these proposed proceedings, the IJ would have the authority to review all decisions issued by the asylum officer, upon request by the applicant. See 8 CFR 1003.48(a) (proposed). For example, if the asylum officer denies an applicant's application for asylum but grants the applicant's application for withholding of removal under the Act, and the applicant requests review by an IJ, the IJ would have the authority to review not only th [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2021-17779. Public record. Not legal advice.